Aelred of Rievaulx
Well-Known Member
This isn't a good argument for a historical David... I think Abraham was mythical too.
Upvote
0
Did King David exist?
- Thread starter AV1611VET
- Start date
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
If Facebook was held to be wholly inspired of God, as even your church states, and if you were consistent with how it treats historical narratives itself, then you would make that determinative of such a things as to whether David existed or not.
Let me address a basic issue here. You certainly are an example of the disparity of beliefs in the "one true "Church," and your subscription to the discredited JEDP theory is part of the beliefs held by predominate liberal RC scholarship - though your denial of David is an extreme example. One of the problems this revisionism is that relegating such stories as the story of Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah, Balaam and the donkey, Jonah and the fish etc. to being fables, and of such events as the Exodus to being embellished folk tales, is that this is a slippery slope which easily leads to denying the NT historical accounts as being literal as well, even to the messiahship and deity of Christ, and of His resurrection.
For if the Lord's genealogy includes people who did not exist, and He invoked such as calling Him "Lord," and stated that "as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," (Matthew 12:40) then one would easily reason that He was not the promised messiah and Divine, and that His death and resurrection was a fable.
And since the church began under Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and referenced such accounts as Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah, Balaam and the donkey, Jonah and the fish as being literal, then the church itself had a false foundation.
Are you sure that you are not an atheist or Islamic?
But instead of the changeable conclusions of what the turn of a spade seems to show, as Peter said,
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:19-21)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Well at least you are consistent with your damnable denial. Then why even hold that Jesus Christ existed? After all, i am quite sure you can find some liberal "scholars" who deny He existed. And that the profound changes in heart and life of those who realize evangelical regeneration are all and always attributable to naturalistic causes.
Why are you even a Catholic?
Upvote
0
AHH who-stole-my-name
in accordance with Christ
Upvote
0
mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,821
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
If David did not exist everything in the bible relating to David is a made up story that mislead the whole of the Jewish nation, not to mention the whole of Christianity as no David then no marker for the family from which Christ was to be from. No Solomon existed either, no 1st temple existed ----and there were no animal sacrifices done as that was done at the temple and no High Priests to offer the sacrifices. No David, then nothing leading up to David is true (such as Ruth and Boaz), nothing during David's time is true and nothing that came from David that's written in the bible can be true, including any of his descendants (such as any of his sons or grandsons who became kings). Which means that the archeologist that dug up that little piece of stone with the inscription "house of David" is definitely talking about some other David--it can't be a fake, it has been declared authentic so it must describe another David. Correct????
Upvote
0
Aelred of Rievaulx
Well-Known Member
I have degrees in religious studies and history. I have come to my beliefs after studying the data. Others have come to other beliefs, I just think that intellectual honesty is important. People shouldn't believe things because they find an alternative belied "damnable" they should believe whatever they find is the most reasonable. I'm Catholic because Catholicism is a very broad religion and my beliefs aren't even that controversial in it.
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I commend intellectual honesty, which would require RCs for confess how broad the way of destruction is in Catholicism, though the liberal revisionism I spoke out, and which has been taught for decades in helps and notes of official Catholic Bibles, is only part of it.
But thank you for your honestly. May you find the literal Lord and savior Jesus Christ in all His fulness.
Upvote
0
Jared R
Episcopalian
- Aug 31, 2015
- 472
- 506
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
That embarrassing moment when it's the non-Catholics defending the Catholic faith in the Catholic subforum... From the Catholics.
Just confirming that the views expressed in this thread by Aelred do not represent the perennial doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Just confirming that the views expressed in this thread by Aelred do not represent the perennial doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
AHH who-stole-my-name
in accordance with Christ
I think you have just pulled Catholicism back out of the "Not just No but Heck no column" for my search. I know it is not fair to judge an entire denomination for the exploits of one person, but this was deeply personal here and reached to the core of my faith.
If I hadn't of had friends like Redleghunter and AV1611VET here I would have probably been banned for what I had in my mind to say to him.
This has left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth and I don't think I will be contributing on the Catholic side of this site for a long time.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Aelred of Rievaulx
Well-Known Member
Do you find it a personal affront if someone doesn't take part of the bible historically? I don't care that you think David existed, what bothers me is when people don't consider the issue as a historical issue. Just like 1+1=2 is a mathematical issue, King David did or did not exist is a historical one, it's not a moral issue.
Upvote
0
AHH who-stole-my-name
in accordance with Christ
No I take affront to the fact that you seem to be more proud of the Intelligence God gave you than the God who gave it to you. This is why you've used it to degrade as much as possible the book who he authored by refuting it, just because it pleases you to follow those those who call attention to themselves other than call attention to God. They have received their reward in the accolades you have given them and what can you do for them other than applaud.
I at one time was irritated with you, but the more I think about it, the more I pity you. You are a prisoner of your own pride and arrogance and I will prey that some day you find out the difference between true wisdom and the foolishness that comes from depending on the ideals of other people. I release myself from the effects of that irritation by forgiving you your trespass and I am moving you. I will prey for you. Have a blessed life wherever that life takes you.
Upvote
0
Aelred of Rievaulx
Well-Known Member
Righteo. Well, I don't think God authored the Bible, I don't consider myself "refuting" the Bible and I don't consider myself to be following other people rather than calling attention to God. I don't consider myself arrogant either and I don't want your forgiveness because I didn't do anything wrong to you. I do want your pity though, I'm collecting those so thank you.
I hope you enjoy your life too, now did you want to discuss historical data?
Upvote
0
AHH who-stole-my-name
in accordance with Christ
This was not about you. It never was. It was about me. God placed you in my path to test one of my main failings and that is my anger. I initially failed at that, but when calm I realized what was happening and then passed the test. My greatest error was seeing you as the one I was supposed to forgive. I apologize to you and to God for that. I know now that I should have forgiven myself for my expectation I placed on you when I saw the label catholic attached to you.
As far as historical data I have no need to discuss what the limitations of the human experience has to offer. I'm not inclined to favor Chicken Mc Nuggets when God has provide steak at his table, but I think you for the offer.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Indeed I do share your intellectual pursuit. There comes a time when we must look at our faith as a Christian faith. That God's revelation is Truth. The Christian faith is not an academic exercise to answer our pressing questions. It is the pursuit of Truth. And those who pursue God's Truth we are told will not be disappointed (Romans 10:11).
This pursuit of seeking out God and His Truth is not what is called 'blind faith' or a leap of faith, or a leap into the unknown. We have evidence not only in God's written Word, but in how He changes lives through regeneration of our hearts and transforming our minds. This is the work of the Holy Spirit as God draws us to Him and our response is either to reject His Truth as revealed or to take hold of it as a damned destitute sinner in need of His Grace.
More from Dave Miller, Ph.D.:
Blind Faith
Author: Dave Miller, Ph.D.
A common misconception among atheists, humanists, and evolutionists is that those who reject evolution in order to hold to a fundamental, literal understanding of the biblical documents are guided by “blind faith.” Robinson articulated this position quite emphatically when he accused Christians of abandoning rationality and evidence in exchange for intellectual dishonesty and ignorance of the truth (1976, pp. 115-124). Many within the scientific community labor under the delusion that their “facts” and “evidence” are supportive of evolution and opposed to a normal, face-value understanding of the biblical text. They scoff at those who disagree with them, as if they alone have a corner on truth.
The fact of the matter is that while most of the religious world deserves the epithets hurled by the “informed” academicians, those who espouse pure, New Testament Christianity do not. New Testament Christians embrace the biblical definition of faith, in contrast to the commonly conceived understanding of faith that is promulgated by the vast majority of people in the denominational world.
The faith spoken of in the Bible is a faith that is preceded by knowledge. One cannot possess biblicalfaith in God until he or she comes to the knowledge of God. Thus, faith is not accepting what one cannot prove. Faith cannot outrun knowledge—for it is dependent upon knowledge (Romans 10:17). Abraham was said to have had faith only after he came to the knowledge of God’s promises and was fully persuaded (Romans 4:20-21). His faith, therefore, was seen in his trust and submission to what he knew to be the will of God. Biblical faith is attained only after an examination of the evidence, coupled with correct reasoning about the evidence.
The God of the Bible is a God of truth. Throughout biblical history, He has stressed the need for the acceptance of truth—in contrast with error and falsehood. Those who, in fact, fail to seek the truth are considered by God to be wicked (Jeremiah 5:1). The wise man urged: “Buy the truth, and sell it not” (Proverbs 23:23). Paul, himself an accomplished logician, exhorted people to love the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). He stated the necessity of giving diligence to the task of dealing with the truth properly (2 Timothy 2:15). Jesus declared that only by knowing the truth is one made free (John 8:32). Luke ascribed nobility to those who were willing to search for and examine the evidence, rather than being content to simply take someone’s word for the truth (Acts 17:11). Peter admonished Christians to be prepared to give a defense (1 Peter 3:15), which stands in stark contrast to those who, when questioned about proof of God, or the credibility and comprehensibility of the Bible, triumphantly reply, “I don’t know—I accept it by faith!”
Thus, the notion of “blind faith” is completely foreign to the Bible. People are called upon to have faith only after they receive adequate knowledge. In fact, the Bible demands that the thinker be rational in gathering information, examining the evidence, and reasoning properly about the evidence, thereby drawing only warranted conclusions. That, in fact, is the essentiality of what is known in philosophical circles as the basic law of rationality: one should draw only such conclusions as are justified by the evidence. Paul articulated exactly this concept when he wrote: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). John echoed the same thought when he said to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1). These passages show that the New Testament Christian is one who stands ready to examine the issues. God expects every individual to put to the test various doctrines and beliefs, and then to reach only such conclusions as are warranted by adequate evidence. Man must not rely upon papal authorities, church traditions, or the claims of science. Rather, all people are obligated to rely upon the properly studied written directives of God (2 Timothy 2:15; John 12:48; 2 Peter 3:16). Biblical religion and modern science clash only because the majority of those within the scientific community have abandoned sound biblical hermeneutics and insist upon drawing unwarranted, erroneous conclusions from the relevant scientific evidence.
The Bible insists that evidence is abundantly available for those who will engage in unprejudiced, rational inquiry. The resurrection claim, for example, was substantiated by “many infallible proofs,” including verification through the observation of more than five hundred persons at once (Acts 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:5-8). Many proofs were made available in order to pave the way for faith (John 20:30-31). Peter offered at least four lines of evidence to those gathered in Jerusalem before he concluded his argument with “therefore…” (Acts 2:14-36). The acquisition of knowledge through empirical evidence was undeniable, for Peter concluded, “as you yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22, emp. added). John referred to the auditory, visual, and tactile evidences that provided further empirical verification (1 John 1:1-2). Christ offered “works” to corroborate His claims, so that even His enemies did not have to rely merely on His words—if they would but honestly reason to the only logical conclusion (John 10:24-25,38). The proof was of such magnitude that one Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews, even admitted: “[W]e know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2).
Nevertheless, there are always those who, for one reason or another, refuse to accept the law of rationality, and who avoid the warranted conclusions—just like those who side-stepped the proof that Christ presented, and attributed it to Satan (Matthew 12:24). Christ countered such an erroneous conclusion by pointing out their faulty reasoning and the false implications of their argument (Matthew 12:25-27). The proof that the apostles presented was equally conclusive, though unacceptable to many (Acts 4:16).
The proof in our day is no less conclusive, nor is it any less compelling. While it is not within the purview of this brief article to prove such (see Warren and Flew, 1977; Warren and Matson, 1978), the following tenets are provable: (1) we can know (not merely think, hope, or wish) that God exists (Romans 1:19-20); (2) we can know that the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of God, and intended to be comprehended in much the same way that any written human communication is to be understood; (3) we can know that one day we will stand before God in judgment and give account for whether we have studied the Bible, learned what to do to be saved, and obeyed those instructions; and (4) we can know that we know (1 John 2:3).
By abandoning the Bible as a literal, inerrant, infallible standard by which all human behavior is to be measured, the scientist has effectively rendered biblical religion, biblical faith, and New Testament Christianity sterile—at least as far as his or her own life is concerned. Once the Bible is dismissed as “figurative,” “confusing,” or “incomprehensible,” one has opened wide the doors of subjectivity, in which every man’s view is just as good as another’s. The more sophisticated viewpoint may be more appealing, but it remains just as subjective and self-stylized.
REFERENCES
Robinson, Richard (1976), “Religion and Reason,” Critiques of God, ed. Peter A. Angeles (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).
Warren, Thomas B. and Antony G.N. Flew (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Warren, Thomas B. and Wallace I. Matson (1978), The Warren-Matson Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Reprinted with permission of Apologetics Press
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=444
EDIT: I noticed this is a Catholic forum and want to thank the moderators and participants of this forum for their hospitality. ----Redleghunter
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Sure. Why do you think the Bible is not historical evidence?
Upvote
0
Aelred of Rievaulx
Well-Known Member
Well, I tend to see the Old Testament as most probably a collection of documents from the Persian period. Most likely from groups of Persian migrants to Jehud who attempted to integrate local traditions about the past and religion into their own traditions. The earliest complete copy of Samuel exists in the Codex Vaticanus from the fourth century CE, we can speculate backwards from there working backwards towards the fragments of Samuel among the Dead Sea Scrolls that the text may have even been Hellenistic in origin, since the entire book is not extant there. Whatever sources the authors of the bible used, whatever fragments, their original contexts aren't known, those "annals of the kings" we simply do not have their original texts and so simply cannot remove them from their final form. Nor can we have any hope in dating them.
Any hope that we can have about a history of Israel is an archaeology of the Levant and the past reconceptualised this way does not correspond in any meaningful way to the textual past of the OT. When pure archaeology is used to ascertain what happened in the Levant between the Bronze age and the Iron Age the patriarchs vanish, the conquest vanishes, the united monarchy vanishes, a plurality of small conglomerates of governments across the Levant appear with no apparent centrality. In fact the archaeological data creates a narrative so different from the OT that harmonising it becomes the real problem. Biblical archaeologists problematically attempt to read both the concrete and the texts together but their narratives scatter the archaeological data around and simply don't take the textual data as composite intentional text.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
If your going to appeal to how history is to be done you should have no problem integrating such methodologies into Biblical textual studies. Archaeological data shouldn't be simplified as just ambiguous remains that have been discovered. It covers multiple data sets that must be methodologically applied to determine historical veracity. You seem to have accepted a predetermined position that allows for a desired outcome. If not your own one you've acquired in a singular path of academic study. I myself start from a predetermined position, yet my outcomes have to be altered as evidence has presented itself. Your position is a standard academic view with excellent credentials. Like the post-exilic school you've criticized it is still another school itself, and even further removed from the past. Like reading a book that's about a book that's about a book. We can say we know more about 1000 B.C. than a Deuteronomist from 500 B.C. yet we do so with no evidence. Before you belittle the Deuteronomist writers who have less historical evidence for their existence than King David, present it if you have it, you should be able to show that they didn't know what we currently know, and it hasn't been shown. Usually a member of your modern academic school uses the word written as you do above in a misleading manner. If you reply to this post would you begin with a definition of what you desire us to perceive from this word.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
